Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 8 May 2007

Recipe links

Hi, I see you put some links to recipes back. I did the cleaning action because one of the links (mexicanfoods) was spammed through wikipedia, and these links do not comply with WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (they are promotional in nature, wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and they do invite more links). Though the information can, strictly, not be incorporated in wikipedia, links to a linkfarm like Template:Dmoz would be better, or to the wikibooks project using {{cookbook}}. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

_{(going to post this to your talk as well)} Why not remove just the offending link(s)? It seems that great many people come to food articles from Google and other search engines, where respective WP entry is usually first or at least in top 10 - and they are usually not looking for Misplaced Pages article, but for recipes. It is a common practice to have few recipe links in food articles. Of course, link farming is a totally different issue and such links should always be removed - but good links to food sites (esp. ad-free sites, such as BBC Recipes) should be there, in my opinion. In case of BBC, they usually have also a very good review of the "foodstuff" in question.

That said, I am not going to put the links back there - but perhaps you should consider reinstating some of the "good" links (to noncommercial sites - see , ). In my opinion they are relevant, useful and needed. DLX 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I see your point, and I did not really look at it that way. But I don't think these sections/links would comply WP:EL and WP:NOT. The problem that I think there is, is that there will be many, many non-commercial sites that provide recipes for tortillas (lets take that as our example). So that will result in the editors to decide which recipes stay, and which go.

WP:EL gives as an alternative linking to a linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (a search delivers 156 hits and some sub-pages; probably contains all these recipes, so that would give the service you suggest), and the wikipedia project has wikibooks, with the associated template {{cookbook}}, which would be good for recipes. For the more established sites, these may also serve as a reference. These alternatives take away all bias, and it does not invite others to spam their links into these sections (what, IMHO, the existence of such a section, even if it would be empty, does).

I'll await some further discussion, consider a re-edit on the articles inserting dmoz and cookbook links (where appropriate/available), and have a discussion about this with others active on the anti-spam front (I guess they will all say: dmoz). Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I suspect that this issue is actually wider then just recipe links on Tortilla. I did some searching and found Misplaced Pages:Recipes_proposal, but it seems they failed to reach consensus. Some kind of general policy about recipes is definitely needed - as for the WP:EL, I think recipe links are covered by #2, #3 and especially #4 in WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink seems to be dead or as good as dead.

I generally don't like the idea of linking DMOZ pages to articles - other then 1st time checking, DMOZ links are rarely verified. As fluctuating as the net is, there can be lots of spam/ad links from dead sites in DMOZ - or just plain link farming, even that page from you has a movie reviews, several links of "tortilla flour" and "Mexican cookware" providers/manufacturers/sellers.

Like I said before, perhaps it is time to establish an official Misplaced Pages policy about linking recipes. Something along the lines - a link section "Recipes" is both allowed and recommended, but must contain a link to WikiBooks cookbook (if there exists a relevant recipe), optional link to DMOZ and no more then five links to relevant recipes in ad-free/non-commercial sites? Some kind of template would be useful, probably.

I hope you don't mind if I post my reply only here. Some Wikipedians like to get always a reply on their talk page as well, but I like to keep conversations in one place (edit: copied to your page as well now). DLX 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am at work, did not have time to answer earlier. I indeed do like to keep discussions in one place, that is better to follow.

I see that the links would comply with parts of the guideline WP:EL, though many will fail other parts (links normally to avoid) as well, and it will result in the common complaint 'there are other links there which are not as good as mine, so mine should be there as well). It is a bit difficult there, and indeed maybe this discussion should be kept at a higher level. I could suggest to bring this up at WT:EL, but I think that the conclusion there will be: do not include, use dmoz or cookbook. I don't know if the recipes list should be 'allowed and recommended', to a certain extend it would be the same as allowing links to how to repair your car on every page about a car, or links to how to make a chemical on all chemical pages. And that while we try to get the number of external links down. I will not go on a rampage to kill all recipe-links (I now only killed those which did contain the spammed link), and will hear what other people say. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and recommendations. I think that bringing this up at WT:EL is a good idea - no matter what the result will be. After thinking about this issue I can see several positive and negative sides on allowing/having recipe links in food articles.

I will do a post to Misplaced Pages talk:External links tomorrow - and will post a short notice to you about it as well. DLX 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't have time today, will try to do it on weekend. DLX 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been a discussion on this subject on the administrators noticeboard, apparently the ruling seems to be that they are not appropriate. Still, feel free to discuss it on WT:EL as well. Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Oops .. difficult to find: linky -> WP:ANI#Unauthorized_bot. --Dirk Beetstra 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you DLX 11:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Russians

Could you give some reason why you've reverted without any discussion and even motivation my edit today? It was seeking NPOV by avoiding political clichees and proofless judgements like "colonization", "Russification" and "occupation" (See its legal definition in Art. 42). Aleksandrs Kuzmins 13:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The question of occupation has been discussed several times (see Occupation of Baltic states and related talk page(s)), rather extensively. Overwhelming consensus is that it was occupation, not annexation. As for the russification, see Russification#Late_1950s_to_1980s:_Advanced_Russianization and rest of the article. In light of those, I don't think "colonization" needs any explanations. DLX 13:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In the mentioned talk page I haven't found a consensus, but different points of view which came till the ArbCom. Prevalence of "occupation theory" supporters in quantity? Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The objectivity of Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945 is still disputed.Aleksandrs Kuzmins 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Russification, you recommended an article which states: "However, children of mixed Russian and Estonian parents living in Tallinn (the capital city of Estonia), or mixed Russian and Latvian parents living in Riga (the capital of Latvia), or mixed Russian and Lithuanian parents living in Vilnius (the capital of Lithuania) most often chose as their own nationality that of the titular nationality of their republic – not Russian" - that's Latvianization, Lithuanization, Estonization, not Russification. The fact that there was assimilation of minor ethnic groups is not deniable, but this happened not only towards the ethnic Russians but also assimilating the minor groups inside the majority group. So there's no reason to speak of Russification as policy.Aleksandrs Kuzmins 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

About colonization: all the heads of CP of Soviet Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia were ethnic Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians. Moreover, these republics lived better than the "metropoly" - this also shows the prooflessness of "colonization" ("colonist" ethnos subordinated to the people from the indigenous - already strange, but possible if these are puppets, however "metropoly" not exploiting "colony"??).Aleksandrs Kuzmins 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take these questions to article talk page or resp. pages.

As for the russification, note "chose" in your quote.

Heads of the CP in all republics were puppets, as you probably know. They had no real power to change anything. And as for the "exploiting" - in Estonia there was a saying (rough translation) - "from pig, we get the screams, rest goes to Russia". DLX 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please restore my earlier addition to Darwin's page?

Dear DLX,

You would have obliged me if you had left a note on my page before deciding to remove my earlier addition to Darwin's page; the addition concerns the following external link: The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online

May I hereby request you to be kind enough and restore my addition? I am inclined to interpret your removal of my addition as less than a friendly gesture.

--BF 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That website was "link farm" last week, when it was added to the article by an anonymous IP (). It seems that now the website is back and has real contents as well. So feel free to add to the article now. DLX 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear DLX,

I expect that Wikipedians respect their fellow Wikipedians to the degree that they check any additions before deleting them — I am undescribably upset (as a matter of fact I am angry — I am sorry to say so, but it is a fact) by your action, and, as implied by my previous message, I expect that YOU restore my addition; I did what I had to do, and you will have to correct your inappropriate and hasty deletion of my addition. Your statement concerning an anonymous IP, etc., is no consolation to me; evidently, I did not edit the Darwin page through an anonymous IP and what some anonymous people may or may not have done in the past is utterly irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that you simply deleted my addition without even caring to check whether the link worked.

"link farm" and "It seems now the website is back" are incomprehensibe to me; http://darwin-online.org.uk/ cannot be and cannot have been link farm, or whatever! The website in question has been on since a year ago and has never since been out of service.

--BF 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

**shrug** Have it your way. With that attitude you won't get far in Misplaced Pages. Also, do learn how to sign your posts properly. DLX 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which attitude? You just deleted someone's considered addition without having cared to check the addition and then talk about attitude? Enough said!

--BF 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition that a week ago was linking to a "best search results: v1agra, C1alis" type site? As for the attitude, "I expect that YOU restore my addition"... Does it really need any comments? Grow up.

And you still haven't learned to sign your comments. DLX 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you may consider to be more respectful in your communications with others; I am certainly not a youth. As for my request, it is common courtesy that when one breaks things in a shop, one pays for them; if you read my first communication carefully, then you will realise that I wrote what I wrote in response to your nonchalant response: "So feel free to add to the article now", as though nothing may have happened; one cannot go about deleting other people's contributions without having first carefully examined them (I try to be sympathetic, but I cannot be held responsible if some people advertise Viagra and the like on Misplaced Pages!!!). May I therefore repeat my earlier request that you kindly restore my earlier addition?

Ps: BF is my official Misplaced Pages signature.

--BF 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the article, I think we've finished discussing that. I gave you my reasons - and it isn't such a big deal as you make it. Don't be insulted when your edits get reverted, just ask on the article talk page why something was removed - or just re-insert it with a better edit summary. Similar things have happened to every WP editor (including myself), if everyone would react like you, Misplaced Pages wouldn't exist.

However, as for the signature, it is a common courtesy to have it to link to your user page, so anyone interested can easily see your user page, talk page and contributions. DLX 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the citations

Dear DLX,

please stop deleting the references of the article on the monument of Lihula, because it seems to be a vandalist action. If you find better citations or references to the mentioned article you can replace the current ones, but as you do not have found such citations you must not delete any of the existng references. You should describe your reasons to delete the footnotes on the TALK PAGE, especially if you see that it is restored for several times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rannit (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Rannit, I have tried to contact you several times. You have not responded even once. Like I said in the HTML comment on that page: "Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Attribution#Language and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. Both sources violate those guidelines, so stop adding those sources (so does http://www.hot.ee/lvpfoorum/Lihula/sambasoda.htm, actually)."

Those sources are simply not acceptable. I suspecy that if you search in Google News, you will find much better results - for example, see this simple search.

Also, thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages and for finally contacting me. DLX 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation changes

I just noticed that my change to the punctuation was a mistake. When I was going through the edit history, I thought I saw the term with a single quotation mark on one side and double on the other. I didn't realized that I was looking at the actual correction and not vandalism. I noticed you also corrected it with the comment in the edit summary " it was better before Oicumayberight (talk) changes, but oh well...". If you were only talking about the punctuation, I didn't have a preference; so feel free to change it to single quotes. If the comment was referring to any of my other edits on that page, I'd like to know what they are if you could please be specific. Oicumayberight 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just punctuation. Sorry, that I wasn't clear enough in my edit summary, I was dead sleepy. And actually, I am not sure whether it should be single or double quotation marks - but at least they should be same on both sides. DLX 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

About your comments on User talk:Staffwaterboy

Hey, it'd be great if you could make sure not to bite newbies. Merely for the sake of information, it has been decided that it is okay to blank and not archive user talk messages. If especially disruptive, it might be questionable, but there's no reason to assume bad faith here. Gracenotes § 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be okay to delete regular chat - but warnings are there for a reason. Those should not be removed. DLX 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't? Eh, there was a proposal about that, but it was rejected. I think that Staffwaterboy hardly removed everything in bad faith; and there is no evidence that he did so. Gracenotes § 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, tbh I thought they should be there, esp. as he had filed a request to become an administrator... DLX 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronkssõduri artikkel

Kuna asun Kanadas ja meil juba öö käes, ehk hoiad sellel Petri Krohnil silma peal et ta vargsi jälle juba lahendatud asju ilma tsitaatideta revertima ei kukuks. Homme võtan jälle öise vahetuse. Unigolyn 06:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. As this is English Misplaced Pages, please use English in talk pages as well... DLX 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, confused this with a U2U. Unigolyn 06:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DLX. Please just take a look at 213.219.81.61 06:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ANI, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page of User:Kuban kazak. Next time please do the reporting yourself, administrators will review incidents the same way if they come from anonymous editors. However, I recommend registering to Misplaced Pages. DLX 07:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Muutsin mõningaid Krohni isiklikke seisukohti ses artiklis. Aga olgem valvel!!90.190.56.10 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of SS war criminals

Look, buddy, don't try to tell me that the Estonian government has never tried to rehabilitate SS figters, war criminals, Nazi lackeys...It is proven that they did. In 2004 the Estonian government opened a monument to Estonians who "fought" in Waffen-SS in the rural area of Lihula (which was taken down several days after). In 2006 the government opened another monument to "SS fighters" from all over Europe (Norwegian, Belgium, Neatherland, etc.). The Kingdom of Belgium sent a note to Tallinn, forbiding to raise Belgium's flag on the monument's opening day. Now let's dig in history. The Nuernberg Tribunal officially labelled SS and its spin-offs as criminal organizations. This meant (and still means) that every member SS is/was/will be a war criminal. Do you know the fate of SS "veterans" in Northern and Western Europe? They lived out their days in shame and disgrace! Forsaken by all, cursed by all, hated by all...

Now let's return to the present. A state does not put monuments in honour of criminal organizations (can you imagine the US building a monument to Charles Manson's cult?). The existance of the monument to Waffen-SS has only one explanation. And do you know what the explanation is?Dimts 12:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe Russian propaganda. Monument of Lihula was dedicated "To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence.", depicting Wehrmacht-like (not SS - and no visible German/Estonian/Nazi identifications) uniform. SS or Nazis are not mentioned or depicted. Also, note that there were no Estonians in SS-proper, only Waffen-SS. Government of Estonia has publicly condemned acts against humanity by both communists and nazis. Hopefully, one day, Russian government will do the same... then it might be more convincing, though, if two thirds of neo-Nazis in the world wouldn't live in Russia.

As for your second mention of "another monument" then could you please come up with some sources? I don't know of such monument nor does googling give me any mentions of that. Very likely I would have heard of this, so I am going to write it off as another shameful propaganda attempt by Russia. DLX 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's located in some place called 'Sinimäe'.Dimts 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you probably mean a place called Sinimäed (plural, not singular). There was raised a small memorial with no Nazi/Communist/other symbolics whatsoever (well, excluding Christian, as it is a cross in stone circle) on year 2000 (not 2006), with simple dedication "For the fallen". It was raised there in hopes for it to become a place where veterans in both sides - Red Army and Waffen SS - could peacefully meet. I have no idea what is happening there now, but I know that on first few years Estonian veterans on both sides held meetings there - peaceful affairs where they put flowers on the nearby graves and sung wartime songs, all Russian, Estonian and German. I couldn't find a decent picture of the memorial, but there is one here, rather small, unfortunately. DLX 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture's fine. OK, I probably mistook Estonia for Latvia and got locations mixed up. Well, thanks for the new info. Good luck.

P.S Sorry, submitted an unsigned post.Dimts 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, would you be interested in helping me with the article Khimki War Memorial? DLX 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, pal, can't help you there. I've never heard about that memorial before.I'm from Denmark. I only remembered the whole monument thing because I saw the clashes between the police and protesters in Tallinn on Euro News.

P.S I mostly edit culture-related articles (fictional universes, fictional characters,etc.). Dimts 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Estonia hate speech

Hi, I reported it again. Hopefully User:Coelacan can't endlessly defend such people. 193.40.5.245 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is needed - although the admin in question... I do not agree with his decision at all. DLX 12:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after reading your reporting) Could you please tone it down a bit, no one like to be "yelled" in caps and red color, that is hurting your otherwise valid complaint rather badly. Always show yourself as calm and composite, that way your chances in these matters are always better. Also, create a user for yourself, anon IP's are not highly regarded. DLX 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on Khimki War Memorial

You have made four reverts: . And threaten me with administration here: . Lantios 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not "threaten", I merely stated the fact that 3RR needs to be reported. And that I did. Also, my first edit in your list was not a revert of {{POV}}, as you can plainly see. Threatening is something what Russians have done to me recently, "We'll kill you and your family, you nazi pig" (for speaking Estonian). DLX 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR on Khimki War Memorial. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel 18:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note, that first "revert" actually isn't a revert and rest are responses to User:Lantios reverts. See topic above () and also his message on my user page where he accuses me of "threatening him with administrators", while my intention was to give obvious new user some breathing room before reporting him. He has not shown goodwill or been reasonable on talk page of the article in question. DLX 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse your edit warring. If you wanted to set a good example for a new user, that's certainly no way to go about it. I suggest you read the WP:3RR policy: the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day. Reverts don't have to be identical; the first edit had the same effect as all the others: you removed the POV tag. The fact that you replaced it with something else you liked better doesn't mean it wasn't a revert. Kafziel 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not "liked better", also that wasn't revert, as you can see. If I would have thought of it as revert, I would not broken 3RR, as you obviously think I did - I am well aware of the rule and carefully avoid breaking it. The "POV" tag (in any form) was totally unsubstantiated, ie no reasons given in the talk at all. See my messages on the talk page of the article and how I tried to make User:Lantios see that he has to give valid reason for the POV tag. As soon as some (although maybe not totally valid) reasons were given, I went along with the tag. In any case, I request blocking of User:Lantios as well, since he was breaking 3RR, like I said in my report of him. DLX 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're "well aware" of 3RR, then you should know that you can break it even if you only revert 3 times. But you did revert four times here: the {{POV}} and {{totally disputed}} tags are essentially the same, and their removal has essentially the same result. Same result = revert, no matter how you do it. Kafziel 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you will assume good faith and be fair. In any case, wasn't I supposed to get warning before my (supposed) 4th revert? As you can see, I have never been blocked for 3RR (and only block I ever had was overturned), therefore I was clearly supposed to be warned first and the report is invalid unless it is done ("Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned."). DLX 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just wikilawyering. A warning is not required in this case; as you yourself say, you were well aware of the rule. You warned another user about it, in fact. No warning needed. Kafziel 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I do feel that the block is unjustified - and it is obvious that you didn't check if I have ever been warned of 3RR or broken it before. Isn't being fair in wikiadmin "job description"? DLX 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't. But I am being fair here anyway. You wanted me to block a new user who was never warned. So either your report of him was in bad faith, or the fact that you got blocked without warning (when you clearly were aware of the policy) is more than fair. Kafziel 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* Have it your way if you want, you have the power. Fair would have been to warn me, perhaps, especially as you can obviously see that I am an established (1000+ edits) user, who hasn't broken any wikipedia rules, ever.

Perhaps it is time to abandon Misplaced Pages or restart with a new user. Things like that take away all the fun from editing Misplaced Pages. DLX 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can be fun, but it's not my primary concern. This is an encyclopedia first, and edit wars discourage new users and compromise the integrity of our articles. Remember: discussion should take place before reverting, not during a series of reverts. And discussion is a two-way street. Make a statement on the talk page, wait for a reply, reply to that, wait for another reply, etc. Edit summaries are for summarizing your edits, not for leaving comments to justify your fourth (or even third) revert in a row.

I am unblocking you now, because I think you understand. It's extremely rare for me to unblock someone, so please don't make me regret it. Kafziel 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My IP was apparently still auto-blocked, but quick cable modem restart helped with that. But I think I will still take a short wiki-break, at least from editing actively. Creating and editing Bronze Soldier of Tallinn showed me that willing Wikipedians can still create very good and NPOV articles, even when topic is as controversial and hotly debated, as that one was. However, pointless and silly edit war with Lantios reminded me how petty, bad-willed and unreasonable users can be, so I'll refrain from major edits until my normal sarcastic attitude has managed to restore itself. DLX 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope you won't be gone for too long. You seem like a good editor, and we actually have similar interests (I've written several articles about military statues and memorials as well). I know editing can be stressful at times, but just remember that there are no emergencies on Misplaced Pages. Everything will work itself out for the best if you're patient. Kafziel 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually couldn't stay away from Misplaced Pages very long... you know how addictive it is  ;). However, to be on the safe side, I won't edit Khimki War Memorial for a while. DLX 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of joining the Military history WikiProject? You could make some good contacts for input and advice in situations like this, and you might find gaps in our articles that you could fill. We do a lot of good work over there. Kafziel 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it - unfortunately I am unsure how much time I have for Misplaced Pages in near future. Last few days were relatively free for me, but going back to work tomorrow... DLX 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No pressure. I know Misplaced Pages doesn't pay very well. :)

Anyway, just something to think about. Take care! Kafziel 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoration_of_Estonian_independence

Seems that one of our friends is up for his own interpretation of history 84.50.35.254 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, put it to my watchlist as soon as he created it. There isn't snowball's chance in hell that his article can ever become a part of mainspace, but it is interesting to watch and see how biased he can be. DLX 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Just to let you know, your mediation case has been changed to open. Jac _roe 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in Dmitri Linter

Dear DLX, please provide your explanations on tagging Dmitri Linter article as POV on its talk page. I would like to note that your POV tagging in the article you don't like personally without any explanations could be considered as Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Your position that only Estonian sources are reliable contradicts to Misplaced Pages WP:RS policy and may well become the reason for RfC on you. Vlad fedorov 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I wrote to talk page of the article, then. As of now there are several suspicious/wrong facts, see the reference to article in Den Za Dnjom that is the source for other Russian newspapers/sources and rest of my talk. I have explained POV there, you haven't rexplained your removal of the tag (you broke 3RR, by-the-way). Why do you want to have known lies in an article? DLX 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't break 3RR, believe me or just read 3RR noticeboard for your education purposes. As for your labelling of all Russian sources as unreliable you should really consult WP:RS policy. You over-generalization conclusions based on one Russian tabloid case are hilarious. Please explain on the talk page which sentence, word in the article is lie, provide neutral, reliable sources (translations if needed) and we would discuss everything like normal civilized people. But, please, do not trigger your edit machinegun. Believe me, if you would provide anything neutral and reliable, no one would disturb you. As long as you tag or edit without any explanations (I mean by explanations not your words or POV, but neutral and reliable sources), a lot of people would disagree with you. Vlad fedorov 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear DLX, please be very careful here. I personally had a lot of trouble in this regard. You may take a look here and here Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorovBiophys 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also you may wish to consult Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biophys and http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:AN/3RR#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_24_hrs.29. You also may look at Biophys log of blocks. Vlad fedorov 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I left a long reply, fully cited, to article talk page. If you do not agree with it, then you must accept {{POV}} tag on the article, as it does not have both views to arrest of Dmitri Linter. DLX 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, just a quick word of advice. Planting templates at talk pages of the established users is counterproductive and rarely achieves the result you want. People get ticked off when communicated with templates which brings only the further aggravation of edit conglicts. Please consider using a human language. --Irpen 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)